On the same day
The multi-billionaire owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, continued facing criticism throughout the weekend because executives from his aerospace company met with Donald Trump on the same day the newspaper prevented its editorial team from publishing an endorsement of his opponent in the US presidential election.
And that’s not just a matter of Bezos having a busy day.
Senior news and opinion leaders at the Washington Post flew to Miami in late September 2024 to meet with Bezos, who had reservations about the paper issuing an endorsement in the 5 November election, the New York Times reported.
Oh yes? What kind of reservations?
Amazon and the space exploration company Blue Origin are among Bezos-owned businesses that still compete for lucrative federal government contracts.
And the Post on Friday announced it would not endorse a candidate in the 5 November election after its editorial board had already drafted its endorsement of Kamala Harris.
Friday’s announcement did not mention Amazon or Blue Origin. But within hours, high-ranking officials of the latter company briefly met with Trump after a campaign speech in Austin, Texas, as the Republican nominee seeks a second presidency.
Hours after Bezos kneecapped the Post, big noises at one of his other companies met with Trump.
Those reported overtures were eviscerated by Washington Post editor-at-large and longtime columnist Robert Kagan, who resigned on Friday. On Saturday, he argued that the meeting Blue Origin executives had with Trump would not have taken place if the Post had endorsed the Democratic vice-president as it planned.
“Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do – and then met with the Blue Origin people,” Kagan told the Daily Beast on Saturday. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.”
If that’s true…well. It’s bad. Very very bad.
The Post’s non-endorsement came shortly after the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, refused to allow the editorial board publish an endorsement of Harris.
Many pointed out how the stances from the Post and the LA Times seems to fit the definition of “anticipatory obedience” as spelled out in On Tyranny, Tim Snyder’s bestselling guide to authoritarianism. Snyder defines the term as “giving over your power to the aspiring authoritarian” before the authoritarian is in position to compel that handover.
Thus making it easier for the aspiring authoritarian to become an authoritarian for real. Good thinking!
So if Trump wins he won’t hold a Harris endorsement against them? I hope when Kamala wins, she remembers who refused to endorse her. But then again she’s not petty like Trump, so let’s don’t endorse anyone. I get it now. Let’s tiptoe around the childish tyrant. Chickenshits.
Read Ann Applebaum on how so-called elites cave to those who threaten them or, as in the case of Musk, get fully on board with them.
Here we go, Bezos’ rationalization. >>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
Well yes, why shouldn’t we be biased against foul human beings like Trump? Bezos talks about the reality, well here’s the reality buddy, trust your editors. Being independent also means having the independence to say which candidate is better and why.
Neither do non-endorsements, so why overrule the editors?
And yet, the owner doesn’t stand behind them. How does this inspire trust or credibility, when instead of supporting the editorial staff, they are stifled simply because the guy at the top has “principles?”
*All of a sudden* he has principles, that is. Good timing.
Bezos is on board with the Rich Guys. Follow the money. What does he have to lose by thumbing his nose at Trump? It’s all too obvious. The defense contract for AWS? Government subsidies for Blue Origin? Can’t let those kids at the newspaper (the ones who might actually have principles) make Big Daddy look negligible, even if that’s what he professed to be from the outset of buying the Post. Of course it’s complex — you can tell how “complexified” it is by the hypocrisy.
Messed up the code on #3, sorry for the mess… :)
“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias.”
This is an area where I take issue with outfits like AllSides and the harping against “bias” in the media. I don’t care so much about bias, I care about things like accuracy and completeness. Have a point of view, but provide me with all necessary information so I can disagree, and perhaps even explain why some people disagree. But the popular mindset is to be terribly concerned about bias and not expressing any opinions, and so it favors leaving out information if that information might given the impression of “bias”.
Which reminds me: an organization of which I used to be a member had an anonymous letter that was read before every election. The letter criticized the usual practice of making only nice statements about all the candidates, saying that didn’t help people make decisions. It ended with, “If he’s a schmuck, call him a schmuck.”
Accusing someone of bias is an ‘ad hominem’ argument.
Point out that s/he has cherry picked data here, or used logical fallacies there.
Whether that is due to conscious or unconscious bias, or just incompetence, that will tell me his/her judgement is not to be trusted, and & don’t otherwise care about the reason.